Guam: An Early Casualty of U.S.-China Tensions?

Sometime after World War II, the Boiga irregularis, or the brown tree snake, is believed to have hitched a ride on a cargo ship and landed on the  Pacifc island of Guam. For the snake, Guam was paradise, home to a large number of prey and no natural predators. By 1970, the snake had colonized the entire island, pushing several bird species to the brink of extinction, clearing the forest of small mammals, terrorizing human residents, and causing thousands of power outages that persist today. On average, there is a snake-caused power outage every third day on Guam; costs due to damage and lost of productivity are estimated to run as high as $4 million every year.

Now Guam is getting ready for a new invasive species to come ashore: the U.S. Marines. At least, that’s how some of Guam’s 178,000 residents see it. A U.S. territory since 1898, the military has had a long presence on Guam, but a U.S. agreement with Japan to transfer over 8000 Marines from Okinawa to the island will significantly increase the military presence there, and, according to critics, further upset Guam’s natural and cultural environment and strain its limited resources.

The buildup, as its come to be known on Guam, is one of “the largest movements of military assets in decades while helping to maintain a robust military presence in the Asia-Pacific region,” according to the Department of Defense. Right now, projected costs for the relocation and new facilities are estimated to be over $10 billion, with Japan footing more than half the bill. The move is part of the military’s broader strategy of strengthening its presence around Asia as China builds up its own navy; the U.S. is also upgrading facilities at Diego Garcia, a British-owned island south of Sri Lanka, where navy equipment is kept for deployment.

The expansion of the Guam facilities has been met with decidedly mixed reviews, both from residents and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Labor needed to complete the construction could raise the island’s population 45-50% by some estimates, in addition to the 23,000 Marines and their dependents who will be relocated there. The EPA, in evaluating the navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), gave the draft plan its worst rating, warning that it could cause island-water shortages, overload sewage treatment systems, and “exacerbate existing substandard environmental conditions on Guam.”

During the statement’s open comment period, in which the U.S. accepted comments from the public, thousands of Guam residents responded, voicing their concerns over issues including coral that would be destroyed in new dredging in the harbor, the impact of new firing ranges on Pagat, locally sacred land, and how the local government would cope with the infrastructure upgrades the buildup would require. “The U.S. military has no plan for how the civilian community will be able to adapt to this,” says Michael Lujan Bevacqua, a history professor at the University of Guam. “The government is [talking about] all the money being spent ‘inside the fence,’ but the same amount needs to be spent ‘outside the fence’” to improve things like water, wastewater, education, and hospitals. (Here’s a photo essay about Pagat and other endangered places in the U.S.)

In the final version of the EIS, released in July, the Navy addressed many of these concerns, extending the timeline of the project, agreeing to look further into the dredging, delaying a decision on where to put the firing ranges, and committing money to help upgrade the island’s wastewater treatment and power facilities, among other things. “We have made a commitment to not exceed the capacity of the infrastructure on Guam,” says Major Neil A. Ruggiero, a public affairs officer for the Marines in Guam. This week, the USDA also announced that it was loaning the Port of Guam $54.5 million to help modernize the port, in addition to a previous $50 million committed by the DOD earlier this year. “There are always going to be people who are happy, people who are not so happy, and then there are people in the middle,” Ruggiero says. “Now, there are all three.”

Bevacqua  is skeptical whether the military’s final plan, which is now underway with the awarding of the first two contracts, was drafted in the true spirit of compromise. “They said that we will delay those decisions, but all indications are they will make the same decisions at a later date,” says Bevacqua. “This whole thing is about showing that they’re listening, but they don’t want to listen at all. They want the option that they want.”

But he admits that he and other anti-military activists are in the minority. Many Guam residents, though they cannot vote in presidential elections and have no congressional representation, feel decidedly more a part of the U.S. than Asia. Particularly after the U.S. recaptured Guam from Japanese occupancy in 1944, the American military has been seen by many on the island as a positive force in the community that lends a hand when natural disasters hit the island, and the coming buildup as a sorely needed source of jobs in a limited economy. (This is an interesting Time.com audio slideshow about the U.S. military presence in the Pacific.)

Strategically, Guam has often been called ‘the tip of the spear’ in America’s Pacific arsenal. But as the U.S. bulks its presence up next door to an increasingly confident China, Bevacqua thinks Guam is getting the short end of that stick. “When the U.S. starts posturing toward China, I start to worry. People in Oklahoma aren’t going to get bombed. We’re going to get bombed,” he says. “The tip of the spear is the first thing to get bloody, you know.”

Related Topics: Invasive Species, Politics, Regulation
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

  • http://billsview.wordpress.com billsview

    Seems like a very stupid plan.

    Spending 10 billion dollars we don’t have (neither does Japan) to posture with China for a war that no one could even start or win is an exercise that is ridiculous. We long ago lost our strategic leverage over China by borrowing trillions of dollars from them.

    We receive 100% of our “rare earth” minerals from China. These are minerals that are used in to develop products ranging from TV’s, cells phones, strategic electronics for the military and almost every product you have in your homes. In 2009 China mined 120,000 metric tons. We mined 0. The next largest producer is India with 2700 metric tons. China has 33% of the entire world reserve of these minerals. The US has 13%. It would take years to ramp up production of these materials to a level any where near what we use.

    Our relationship with China is now so dependant that a war would disrupt American life beyond our ability to recognize it. 60% of the Apple juice that people drink in the USA comes from China. Moving troops to “the tip of the spear” on Guam when the maneuver can’t have any real strategic value and the money is needed in so many other places is irresponsible. Lets get a grip on our spending folks and start challenging these moronic plans when we see them.

    For more thoughts from someone that has an interesting view of the world go here:

    http://billsview.wordpress.com

  • http://googlevideo.wordpress.com/ googlevideo

    Bill you don’t understand the mindset of China:
    - Spratly Islands – stolen from the Phllippines shortly after US forces left.
    - Tibet- brutally & forcefully taken from Tibetans
    - Taiwan – still trying to get their grubby hands on it.
    - Making fake friends all over Africa
    - Trying to take-over major mines in Australia
    - Same in Canada
    - Same in Afghanistan
    - Same in Pakistan
    - disputes with India
    - disputes with Russia

    This is clearly an expansionist government, and if history has proven anything EVERY expansionist movement has lead to war.

    - The Greeks
    - The Persians
    - The Romans
    - Spain
    - England
    - USSR (Vietnam)
    - Hitler’s Germany

    It is a TOTAL guarantee that if the US doesn’t beef up in these areas, China will.

  • http://billsview.wordpress.com billsview

    A bit presumptuous to tell me I don’t understand the mindset of China.

    That said, the point of the post is to get opinions stated and to hear other arguments and try to understand other viewpoints. So with that goal in mind, let me make a couple of points:
    • China was always an exclusionary society. The great wall was built to keep people out, not keep people in.
    • It wasn’t until the great opium wars that China recognized the need to look beyond its boarders to protect the core country. The opium wars were all about gold and tea. Great Briton was almost bankrupted during this time. They intentionally hooked the Chinese on opium grown on plantations in India to change the balance of trade. Tens of thousands of Chinese died during the wars. Many American families made their fortune during this time. The Chinese learned western business tactics.
    • The first Chinese foray outside its boarders since the 1400’s was in Korea in the 1950’s.
    • In the early 1400’s China had built the largest fleet in world history. The emperor had the fleet burned to keep China internal, and not expansionist.
    • Taiwan historically has been associated with China for over 3000 years. China doesn’t recognize the cessation of Taiwan in the same way the Northern states didn’t recognize the cessation of the south in the Civil war.
    • The same holds true of Tibet.
    • Instead of naming a few ancient civilizations that were expansionist, most experts would argue that many if not all major ancient, colonial and modern societies have been expansionist. You’d be hard pressed to find a growing society that has not been. This includes the United States. Our extinction of the Native Americans is proof of that. Most historians view our phony war with Spain in Cuba and the subsequent take over of the Philippines as further evidence of our expansion desires in 1898, and many suspect our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have roots in expansion.

    Now, with all of that said, I fear somehow you missed the point of my post. Which was:

    • How does the move of 23,000 troops and support people to Guam change anything China may or may not do? The entire US Navy Pacific fleet in Hawaii didn’t stop the Japanese.
    • Is the cost of over $434,000 for each individual to move to Guam justifiable?
    • How can the US use a 1920’s strategy of military maneuvering to complete against a country that has us by the balls on an economic basis?
    • Why is the US continually placing itself in the role of world police?

blog comments powered by Disqus